Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in Patients With Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: 5-Year Outcomes From the Phase III CROWN Study.

PURPOSE: Lorlatinib improved progression-free survival (PFS) and intracranial activity versus crizotinib in patients with previously untreated, advanced, ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CROWN study. Here, we report long-term outcomes from CROWN after 5 years of follow-up. METHODS: Two hundred ninety-six patients with ALK-positive NSCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive lorlatinib 100 mg once daily (n = 149) or crizotinib 250 mg twice daily (n = 147). This post hoc analysis presents updated investigator-assessed efficacy outcomes, safety, and biomarker analyses. RESULTS: With a median follow-up for PFS of 60.2 and 55.1 months, respectively, median PFS was not reached (NR [95% CI, 64.3 to NR]) with lorlatinib and 9.1 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 10.9) with crizotinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.27]); 5-year PFS was 60% (95% CI, 51 to 68) and 8% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median time to intracranial progression was NR (95% CI, NR to NR) with lorlatinib and 16.4 months (95% CI, 12.7 to 21.9) with crizotinib (HR, 0.06 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.12]). Safety profile was consistent with that in prior analyses. Emerging new ALK resistance mutations were not detected in circulating tumor DNA collected at the end of lorlatinib treatment. CONCLUSION: After 5 years of follow-up, median PFS has yet to be reached in the lorlatinib group, corresponding to the longest PFS ever reported with any single-agent molecular targeted treatment in advanced NSCLC and across all metastatic solid tumors. These results coupled with prolonged intracranial efficacy and absence of new safety signals represent an unprecedented outcome for patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC and set a new benchmark for targeted therapies in cancer.

Impact of Prior Cytoreductive Nephrectomy on Efficacy in Patients with Synchronous Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Avelumab plus Axitinib or Sunitinib: Post Hoc Analysis from the JAVELIN Renal 101 Phase 3 Trial.

Data on the effects of prior cytoreductive nephrectomy (CN) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with synchronous metastases (M1 disease) before immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment are limited. In this post hoc analysis of treatment-naive patients with advanced RCC from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, we assessed efficacy outcomes in the avelumab + axitinib and sunitinib arms in patients who were initially diagnosed with M1 disease (n = 412) grouped by prior CN (yes vs no). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using multivariable Cox regression, and objective response rates (ORRs) were analyzed using logistic regression. After adjusting for imbalances in baseline variables, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS in the prior CN versus no prior CN subgroup was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-1.16) in the avelumab + axitinib arm, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.77-1.70) in the sunitinib arm. The corresponding HRs for OS were 0.59 (95% CI 0.38-0.93) and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.55-1.34), and the odds ratios for ORR were 2.67 (95% CI 1.32-5.41) and 2.02 (95% CI 0.82-4.94), respectively. Prospective studies of the potential benefits of CN and its appropriate timing in patients receiving first-line treatment with ICI-containing combinations are warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study looked at patients with kidney cancer whose disease had already spread outside the kidneys when it was first detected. We found that patients whose kidney had been removed before starting treatment with avelumab + axitinib had better outcomes than those whose kidney had not been removed. For patients treated with sunitinib, the results were more similar between the groups with and without prior kidney removal. However, statistical tests did not find any significant differences. The JAVELIN Renal 101 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02684006.

A Retrospective, Multicenter, Observational Study to Evaluate Clinical Outcomes of Lorlatinib After Alectinib in Patients With ALK-Positive NSCLC in Japan.

Introduction: Lorlatinib is an ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved in Japan for the treatment of advanced ALK+ NSCLC. There has been little evidence about lorlatinib efficacy after first-line (1L) alectinib in clinical practice in Japan. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC previously treated with 1L alectinib at multiple sites in Japan. Primary objectives were to collect patient demographics at baseline and estimate time to treatment failure (TTF) with second-line (2L) or third-line (3L) or later line (≥3L) lorlatinib treatment. Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR) with lorlatinib, reason for discontinuation and time to last treatment failure with lorlatinib, TTF and ORR of alectinib, and combined TTF. Results: Among the 51 patients included in the study, 29 (56.9%) received 2L and 22 (43.1%) received ≥3L lorlatinib treatment. At lorlatinib initiation, brain metastases were reported in 25 patients (49.0%), and 32 (62.7%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Median TTF with lorlatinib was 11.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6-13.8) in any line, 10.8 months (95% CI: 3.9-13.8) in 2L, and 11.5 months (95% CI: 2.9-not reached) in ≥3L. Median TTF was 11.5 months (95% CI: 3.9-not reached) in patients with brain metastases at lorlatinib initiation and 9.9 months (95% CI: 4.3-13.8) in patients without brain metastases. ORR was 35.7% with any-line lorlatinib treatment. Conclusions: Patient characteristics and efficacy were comparable with previous reports when lorlatinib was given after 1L alectinib in patients with ALK+ NSCLC.

Impact of Therapy Management on Axitinib-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Receiving First-Line Axitinib + Checkpoint Inhibitor.

INTRODUCTION: There are limited real-world data on the effectiveness of strategies used to manage adverse events (AEs) in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treated with axitinib. This retrospective chart review examined the AE profile and effect of axitinib modifications on AE resolution/improvement and treatment discontinuation. METHODS: A retrospective physician-administered chart review was conducted. Adult patients with advanced RCC treated with first-line axitinib plus checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) therapy (ie, avelumab or pembrolizumab) and who had documented frequently reported axitinib-related AEs of fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, hypertension, or palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia were included. Physician characteristics, patient characteristics, AE characteristics, AE management strategies used, AE resolution/improvement, and treatment duration were described. The effect of strategies used to manage AEs (axitinib dose reduction or treatment interruption) on AE resolution/improvement was evaluated by logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 219 patients (median age: 62 years, 65% male), 70 (32%) were treated with axitinib + avelumab and 149 (68%) received axitinib + pembrolizumab. Axitinib modifications increased the likelihood of AE resolution/improvement compared with no modifications (adjusted odds ratio: 6.34, P < .001). In the subset of patients who discontinued treatment among those with or without axitinib modifications, mean treatment duration was 7.0 and 1.7 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Toxicities experienced by patients with advanced RCC treated with first-line axitinib-CPI in the real world can be effectively managed by axitinib modifications, thereby prolonging treatment duration. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT04682587).

Real-World Therapy Management and Outcomes of First-Line Axitinib Plus Pembrolizumab in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in the United States.

Background: Combination axitinib plus pembrolizumab is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC). This analysis describes the clinical characteristics, treatment management and outcomes of patients receiving first-line (1L) axitinib plus pembrolizumab in a real-world US setting. Methods: Electronic health record (EHR)-derived data from the Flatiron Health Database, which includes ~280 cancer clinics across 800 sites in the US, were used. Patients had confirmed Stage IV or metastatic RCC and initiated 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab on or after 1/1/2018 to 3/31/2021. Outcomes were best overall response rate; real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) at landmark time periods (3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Therapy management (TM) included dose hold, dose change and discontinuation. Data are reported as medians (IQR) unless otherwise noted. Results: 355 patients received 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab, with median follow-up of 9.7 (0.1-24.3) months. IMDC Risk Score was favorable, intermediate, and poor in 27 (7.6%), 126 (35.5%), and 76 (21.4%) patients, respectively (23.4% intermediate/poor, 12.1% unknown). 270 patients (76.1%) received only 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab and 85 patients (24.3%) received ≥1 subsequent line of treatment; cabozantinib was the most frequent subsequent line of treatment (47.9%). rwPFS at 3 months and 1 year was 77.2% and 39.3%, respectively. OS ranged from 90.8% at 3 months to 73.5% at 1 year. Best overall response rate was 47.9%. Toxicity was the most common reason for first TM events of dose hold, change and discontinuation at, 58.6%, 58.5%, and 45.8%, respectively. Over 80% of patients with TM were able to continue with 1L axitinib plus pembrolizumab. Conclusions: In a real-world setting, axitinib plus pembrolizumab was effective as a 1L treatment for patients with advanced RCC. Dose holds, changes and discontinuation were driven by treatment-related toxicity. Dose holds may represent an effective TM strategy to toxicity.

Time to Resolution of Axitinib-Related Adverse Events After Treatment Interruption in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Combined axitinib and immuno-oncology (IO) therapy is approved for first-line advanced renal cell carcinoma. Overlapping toxicities represent a clinical challenge. Calculating the time to resolution (TTR) of common axitinib-related adverse events (AEs) after treatment interruption may help to identify AE etiology and determine appropriate management strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 5 randomized or single-arm axitinib monotherapy or combination studies were analyzed. Patients with histologically confirmed clear cell advanced renal cell carcinoma were pooled into 3 cohorts based on treatment received: axitinib monotherapy, axitinib + IO, and other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Any grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, nausea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome were assessed. TTR was defined as the time from treatment interruption/discontinuation to resolution. RESULTS: The axitinib monotherapy cohort comprised 532 patients, the axitinib + IO cohort 541 patients, and the other TKI cohort 882 patients. Median TTR for all AEs (any grade) in the axitinib monotherapy cohort ranged from 1 to 3 days, except for fatigue (8 days). For diarrhea, hypertension, nausea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, median TTRs were longer in the axitinib + IO (4-11 days) and other TKI (7-8 days) cohorts versus the monotherapy cohort. Results were similar when only AEs of grade ≥3 were considered. CONCLUSIONS: The TTR of monotherapeutic axitinib-related AEs is ≤3 days, except for fatigue, and generally shorter than for other single-agent TKIs and axitinib + IO. This has important implications for identifying AE etiology with combined axitinib-IO therapy and implementation of appropriate management strategies. ClinicalTrials.org identifiers: NCT00678392, NCT00920816, NCT02493751, NCT02684006, NCT02853331.

Safety and effectiveness of classical and alternative sunitinib dosing schedules for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

The optimal dosing schedule to maintain the effectiveness of sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma - while reducing toxicity - remains an important clinical question. A meta-analysis of randomized trials and observational studies assessed the relative treatment effects of 4/2, 2/1 and transitional-2/1 schedules on outcomes and adverse events using Bayesian network meta-analysis methods. Treatment with 2/1 reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 25% and had lower odds of hand-and-foot syndrome compared with the 4/2. A numerical but not 'statistical' benefit in progression-free survival was observed with the transitional-2/1 compared with 4/2. Alternative schedules with the 2/1 and transitional-2/1 may be more clinically beneficial in metastatic renal cell carcinoma than the 4/2 schedule.

Sunitinib Treatment Modification in First-Line Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Analysis of the STAR-TOR Registry.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Sunitinib is the current standard of care for first-line (1L) treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Previous studies suggest that a modified treatment schedule may benefit patients. Our aim was to evaluate efficacy and safety regarding sunitinib treatment modification in 1L treatment of mRCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were drawn from STAR-TOR, a German real-world registry to evaluate outcomes of patients with mRCC who received 1L sunitinib. Patients were divided into two groups: subsequent treatment modification (SM) or remaining on standard dose/schedule (SS). Time on treatment (TT), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS: Overall, 297 patients were analyzed; 33% underwent treatment modification. Significant baseline differences between groups were observed; SM patients were older and had a more favourable Karnofsky performance status. SM patients achieved better outcomes than SS patients for median TT (15.1 versus 3.9 months; p<0.0001), PFS (15.1 versus 6.0; p<0.0001), and OS (38.1 versus 13.7; p<0.0001). Diarrhoea (34%/17%), fatigue (30%/11%), hand-foot syndrome (28%/10%), and stomatitis (20%/6%) were more frequently reported in SM versus SS; incidence was reduced following schedule/dose modification (except diarrhoea). CONCLUSION: In addition to AE mitigation, sunitinib treatment modification may help improve efficacy outcomes in mRCC by prolonging treatment duration.

Selection of aptamers with high affinity and high specificity against C595, an anti-MUC1 IgG3 monoclonal antibody, for antibody targeting.

Targeting of antibodies has found a number of applications in assays, anti-idiotypic therapies and vaccine design with a number of anti-idiotypic Abs generated and used in clinical applications, and some currently in clinical trials. Meanwhile, aptamers are a novel and particularly interesting targeting modality, with a unique ability to bind to a variety of targets. Aptamers offer unique benefits compared to other targeting agents, due to their high affinity and selectivity, relatively small size and in vitro synthesis, making them attractive alternatives to Abs and peptides. Aptamers have already been selected against a number of Abs for various applications. We now present a novel methodology for the selection of aptamers against Abs, which minimises the number of steps used and results in molecules that bind to the target Ab with high affinity and specificity. We have used the well-characterised anti-MUC1 monoclonal Ab C595 as an exemplar for raising aptamers against Abs. The methodology is based on the adsorption of the Ab to the surface of a PCR tube and the performance of SELEX selections in the PCR tube, based on elution steps resulting from the denaturation of the Ab on the first PCR amplification cycle. After 10 rounds of selection and amplification, selected aptamers have been characterised using a number of techniques, including fluorescence quenching, ELISA and competition ELISA procedures and a FRET type assay. Aptamers were found to bind their target Ab with a higher affinity than its natural antigenic peptide, as observed in fluorescent quenching and FRET experiments. Furthermore, they were able to displace the antigens from the antibody binding pocket in competition assays. This methodology offers the possibility of rapidly selecting aptamers for antibody targeting that could be used as diagnostic, imaging or therapeutic agents, or as recognition units in immunoassays, and can be potentially useful in raising aptamers against other protein targets.